F 315 
I.S538 
Copy 1 



J^ 



/^t4_ . 



Cl^ 



(''{ c/^ -f iX-^^3t 



|0 



STATEMENT 

Of the Claim of Charles Fi Sibbald against the United States ; era- 
bracing the points suggested in the instructions of the Attorney 
General, to the Third Auditor. 

The claimant, a merchant of the city of Philadelphia, being the owner 
of a large and valuable landed estate in Florida, derived under an authen- 
tic legal grant from the Spanish government made before the cession, 
erected several steam mills on his property — made extensive contracts 
to supply live oak and other timber, and had other extensive business 
arrangements in successful operation on his said estate, when he was 
suddenly interfered with in the use and enjoyment of his property, by 
the officers of the United States, acting under orders of the Executive, 
and has been overwhelmed in ruin. 

The land in question was one of those grants from the Spanish gov- 
ernment, commonly called mill grants. It embraced 16,000 acres, or 
25 square miles of land, all containing valuable descriptions of timber, 
such as yellow pine, red cedar and live oak. The officers of the gov- 
ernment, acting under orders of the Executive, stopped the use of this 
property until the titles were decided in the Supreme Court of the United 
States, which was not done till the year 1836. This tribunal then 
confirmed the entire grant of the claimant ; when he immediately peti- 
tioned Congress for indemnity or reparation. The views and action 
upon the case are exhibited in the following report, made by the Com- 
mittee of Claims of the House of Representatives, and unanimously 
adopted by that highly respectable body, 

" On the 1st of April, 1842, Mr. Tomlinson from the Committee of 
Claims made the following report : 

" The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the memorial of 
Charles F. Sibbald, together with divers documents and teslimooy com- 



u 



Fbvs 

^& s 
2 



raunicated from the Treasury Department, with previous reports made 
thereon, have had the same under consideration, and submit the following 

• REPORT: 

" It appears that the petition of said Sibbald was submitted to this com- 
mittee at the 2nd session of the 24ih Congress, (in 1837) wherein he 
sets forth that he was a merchant in Philadelphia, and was possessed 
of a large and valuable landed estate in East Florida, under a grant from 
the Spanish government ; that, for the purpose of making the same 
productive and profiiable, he had erected extensive steam mills thereon, 
and had also made extensive contracts for supplying timber of various 
kinds ; that while thus pursuing his plans, and in the peaceable and 
successful use and enjoyment of his property, he was dispossessed of 
the same by orders from the Executive Departments of the government, 
and thereby his plans were frustrated and he was overwhelmed in ruin: 
that he was kept out of the use and possession of his estate for many 
years, and finally he was restored to the possession thereof by the de- 
cision of the Supreme Court of the United Slates in 1836. For the 
losses and damages sustained by thus being prevented from the use of 
his property, he claims remuneration from Congress." 

"This petition was accompanied with numerous documents and cor- 
respondence with several of the Departments. In the early investiga- 
tion of this case, application was made by the Committee of Claims to 
the Treasury and Navy Departments, for proof of these alleged aggres- 
sions, or for the orders and instructions which had emanated therefrom 
to the government agents in relation thereto." 

" Numerous documents were obtained, and after due consideration, on 
the 3rd of March, 1837, Mr. Whittlesey, from the then Committee of 
Claims, made a report, selling forth a concise statement of the facts, as 
they then appeared, and concluding with certain resolutions, which 
were concurred in by the House, authorizing the Secretary of the Trea- 
sury to lake testimony so as to develope fully the whole facts, and con- 
cluding that '' it was deemed inexpedient to make any decision as to the 
liability of the United Stales until the facts in tlie case became known." 
Pursuant to said resolutions, interrogatories were prepared by the De- 
partment, and the petitioner and witnesses, among whom were divers 
officers of the government, were carefully examined by the District 
Attornies at the several points of examination, and by ihe Consul of the 
United States in Cuba. This testimony was returned to Congress on 



the 7th February, 1838, but from its extent, it was found impracticable 
to give it such an examination as was requisite, injustice to the United 
States, or to the petitioner. It was, therefore, on the 2d July, 1S38, 
under a resolution of the House, referred to the Solicitor and first and 
second Controllers of the Treasury Department, whose report thereon 
may be found in document. No. 238, of tlie 3d session 25lh Congress.'' 
"The whole case has again come up for consideration before the com- 
mittee, and, from the examination they have been enabled to bestow 
upon it, they deem the following facts established." 

"That the petitioner was the owner, and entitled to the full, free and 
,- uninterrupted use and enjoyment of his landed estate in Florida at the 
i time of the cession of that Territory to ihe United States ; that he so 
continued the owner, and in quiet and peaceable possession thereof, 
£ until he was disturbed, as is hereinafter noticed : that his lands were 
J well supplied with yellow pine timber, red cedar, and live oak, in de- 
^ tached parcels ; that he had erected extensive steam saw mills to saw 
his pine timber ; had made extensive contracts with one Samuel Grice, 
and subsequently with the Navy Department, for a supply of live oak, 
thus to bring into profitable use divers portions of these lands ; and had 
in connexion with these operations, other business to a large extent; 
that the officers of the United States having in charge the preservation 
of the timber on the public lands in that Territory, and the prevention 
of tresspasses thereon, acting under orders from the Treasury and Navy 
Departments, deemed and treated the lands of the petitioner as public 
lands, directly interfered and prevented him, or those acting for him, 
from cutting or using his own timber, either for supplying his mills or 
fulfilling his live oak contracts ; that being thus prevented from the law- 
ful use and enjoyment of his property, his credit, based upon its value 
and his ready resources therefrom, became impaired, his business afl^airs 
(which were very extensive) became embarrassed, and after praisewor- 
thy efforts to relieve himself from his pecuniary difficulties, he was 
compelled to yield to the pressure of the circumstances surrounding 
him, and throw himself upon the mercy of his creditors. His creditors 
immediately sued out attachments against him, and his mills, erected at 
an immense expense, and his other property in Florida, were taken 
possession of by the United States' Marshal, at the suit of his creditors, 
in whose hands they have perished by dilapidation and decay," 

" It is proper here to remark, that there is no direct evidence to sustain 
the allegations of the petitioner that the agents of the government di- 
rectly interfered with the cutting of pine timber upon his lands for the 



4 

supply of his mills after the 20th June, 1829, until his title to his land 
was fully confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, in 
1836; yet, as they had directly and positively interfered prior to this 
time, and threatened the employment of military force to enforce obedi- 
ence to their authority, and as the same orders and instructions under 
which they then assumed to act, were continued, and were refused to be 
relaxed on a direct application made by the petitioner to the Navy De- 
partment for that purpose, the petitioner had good reason to suppose, 
and did suppose, and acted in view thereof, that no use of the timber on 
said land, for any purpose whatever, would be permitted until the final 
confirmation of his title by the Supreme Court." 

" The orders and instructions under which the government agents acted 
were made to extend to all unconfirmed Spanish grants, and the con- 
struction put upon them by the agents seems to have been concurred in 
and confirmed by the Executive Departments, as they were fully advised 
of the conduct of their agents in the premises, and repeatedly and earn- 
estly called upon by the petitioner to modify their instructions, and to 
interfere and prevent the loss and damage which would result to him 
therefrom. They were issued, doubtless, for the laudable object of 
protecting the public lands from injury and spoliation, especially of the 
live oak, so necessary for the navy. Still, however, if in thus protecting 
the interest of the United States, an individual, like the petitioner, has 
been seriously injured, the obligation to make him reparation is not 
weakened thereby. The acts of the authorized agent or agents being 
approved by the government, it must be considered their act, and the 
injury, if any, to the petitioner, must be responded to by them." 

" In this view of the case, the committee have found no difficulty in 
coming to the conclusion that the damages which the petitioner actually 
sustained by reason of the interference of the government, by their agents, 
with the use, possession or enjoyment of his properly in Florida, when 
ascertained upon principles of law and equity, according to a true con- 
struction of the testimony submitted, should be paid to him ; and with 
this view, they report a bill directing the Secretary of the Treasury to 
ascertain such damages, and when ascertained, to allow and pay him 
the amount." 

This is the report, which accompanied the bill, which was passed 
by the House of Representatives of the United States ; and which fol- 
lowed it to the Senate, where also it was unanimously adopted, and 
after a debate of nearly two days duration, when the entire grounds of 
the claim were extensively, and with much ability, argued, and the law 



that arises on it. It was passed and became a law of the land on the 
23d of August, 1842, by the approval of the President of the United 
States. 

It can be stated without the fear of contradiction, that the only dif- 
ference of opinion on the debate in the Senate, arose from a laudable 
purpose of a few Senators, founded from a full knowledge of the mag- 
nitude of the claim, which in consequence of its extent or amount, they 
preferred to be first audited, and afterwards to provide the necessary ap- 
propriation for its payment, while a very large majority, satisfied of its 
merits and its justice, contended that it should at once be submitted, 
audited, and paid by the Treasury Department, In the House of Rep- 
resentatives it passed unanimously. It is therefore obvious that Congress 
legislated with a full view and knowledge of the extent of the claim. 
They certainly considered the merits of the claim settled, and intended 
it to go to the Departments only, that the amount due upon the respec- 
tive items of claim might be determined. The act of Congress is in 
the following words : the clause referring the case to the third Auditor 
under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States for 
settlement having been made in the Senate. 

AN ACT 
FOR THE RELIEF OF CHARLES F. SIBBALD. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the third Audi- 
tor of the Treasury, under the direction of the Attorney General, be, 
and he is hereby directed to ascertain the actual damages which Charles 
F. Sibbald has sustained and would be entitled to recover, upon the 
principles of law, as applicable to similar cases, by reason of the inter- 
ference of any agent or agents of the United States, acting under their 
authority, with the use, possession, or enjoyment of his lands, timber, 
mills, or other property in East Florida, from eighteen hundred and 
twenty-eight, to February seventh, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, at 
which time the title of said property was confirmed to the said Charles 
F. Sibbald by the Supreme Court of the United States ; and that the 
Secretary of the Treasury after the said damages shall have been ascer- 
tained in the manner aforesaid, in case any sum shall be found due to 
said Charles F. Sibbald, shall pay the same to him out of any money 
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 

Upon the language of this act, which is so explicit as to require but 
little remark, only one observation need be made. 



6 

The words ^^ any sum'^ introduced in the bill seem to have been 
considered by the Auditor as giving the impression that Congress de- 
sired the whole matter to be reviewed ; such was not the intention of 
that body. These words were introduced to meet the very large amount 
that it was well ascertained this bill would require to be paid to the 
claimant, and were intended to sanction the payment of "any sum" that 
should be awarded. 

Passing this by, however, and taking the instructions of the Attorney 
General to the third Auditor as our guide, let us look to the facts and 
the law, and see whether the claimant has established his case beyond 
controversy; and whether the testimony and facts are such as to sustain 
the report of the House of Representatives, which has been already 
set forth. 

The first question is, "was the claimant the owner, and entitled to 
thefall,free, and uninterrupted use and enjoyment of his landed estate 
in Florida, at the time of the cession of that Territory to the United 
States." In the strong language of the report of the House of Represen- 
tatives, the Supreme Court of the United Slates has answered this 
question by its decrees ; contained in 10 and 12 Peters — Sibbald vs. 
the United States ; where they have confirmed his entire grant for 16,000 
acres of land. This is the land upon which the mills were built, and 
from which the Spanish government intended he should derive his sup- 
plies of timber for their employment. It was emphatically a mill grant. 
This large quantity of land was always granted for mill purposes, "to 
insure a constant supply of timber." It was granted to be, and was 
accordingly surveyed in detached parcels, and all contained valuable 
timber, such as yellow pine, red cedar, and live oak. It was also fit 
for agricultural purposes when cleared of timber. The Supreme Court 
has declared that these grants were confirmed '■^presently'''' on the rati- 
fication of the treaty with Spain. This is high, binding and unques- 
tionable authority, not to be controverted. 

The next point is, was the claimant interrupted by the officers of the 
United States, acting under the authority of the government. The un- 
dertakings of the claimant have been somewhat developed in the report 
of the Committee of Claims, and before proceeding to exhibit the acts 
of the officers in arresting and stopping the claimant in the pursuit of his 
business and the exercise of his rights, it will be proper to show that 
these acts were performed and the trespass committed under the direct 
orders of the Departments at Washington, induced, beyond doubt, by 
erroneous legislation of Congress upon the subject of these Spanish 



grants, which were protected by the 8th article of the Florida treaty. 
These acts have been declared, by subsequent decisions of the Supreme 
Court, to be in direct violation of that treaty, as will be clearly seen in 
6 Peters, in the case of Arredondo vs. the United States. 

It is a matter well known in the history of our legislation, that for 
many years after the change of flags in Florida, and the cession of that 
territory to the United Stales, the policy and liberality of the Spanish 
government throughout her dominions, in granting the public domain, 
was but little understood by the government of the United States. In 
fact, until the Hon. Joseph M. White published a compilation of 
Spanish land laws, by authority of Congress, the greatest ignorance 
prevailed, and led to the greatest injustice to those who held under 
Spain, and ought, under the treaty, to have been protected in their 
rights; hence the prior appointment of land commissioners to investi- 
gate titles — tardy legislation, protracted delays, and a most vexatious 
course pursued to the manifest injury of the claimants under such 
grants. The government of Spain, has ever exercised a magnanimous 
course towards the resident citizens of her dominions every where, 
where her government has existed or extended. Thus the desert waste 
has been yielded to individual enterprise ; and in Florida, grants were 
liberally bestowed for agricultural purposes to persons according to 
their resources, or the number of their family or workers ; whether 
required for pasturage, for tanneries, or for mechanical purposes; and 
it was for this latter, as a mill grant, that the grant of the claimant was 
made. It was while carrying out the very intentions of the Spanish 
government in making the grant that he was thus interrupted and his 
business prostrated. 

The correctness, then, of these positions cannot be disputed. That 
is, that the claimant held a valid, legal, absolute grant, made to him by 
the Spanish government, before the cession, for 10,000 acres; that 
this grant was solemnly recognized as complete by the Supreme Court 
of the United States ; that the intention of the Spanish government, in 
making it, was of the most liberal character ; that it was meant to sup- 
ply him with timber, to enable him to carry on saw-mills ; that it was 
in reliance on this, that he received his lands and built his mills ; that 
the United States, from the very day of the cession of Florida totally 
misconceived their authority and rights in regard to those grants in 
Florida, adopted a course most unjust and oppressive to the holders of 
lands under Spanish titles, deprived them, by their course of legislation, 
and by directions to their ofllcers, of the use of their property, and sub- 
jected them to grievous losses, for which indemnity is now to be made. 



8 

These points being established, the next inquiry is — what were the 
officers of the United States instructed and authorized to do ? 

An act to establish a territorial government in Florida, approved 30th 
March, 1822, expressly directs, that the '* Act to prevent settlements 
being made on lands ceded to the United States until authorized by law, 
which had been approved 3d of March, 1807, shall extend to, and have 
full force and effect in the territory of Florida." 

This act forbids claimants under pain of forfeiture of all claim to the 
land, from occupying their lands ; but the Secretary of the Treasury, 
by the approbation of the President, &e., may permit applicants to 
remain on such tracts, not to exceed 320 acres, as tenants at will, on 
such terms and conditions, as shall prevent waste and damages, and on 
the express conditions whenever he may be required under authority 
of the United States, to give quiet possession of such land," and the 
land and naval forces *' are to be employed, or such other further mea- 
sures as may be deemed advisable." 

By an act passed in 1817, the Secretary of the Navy had been re- 
quired to protect the public timber ; and any vessel taking the same, 
was made liable to seizure and confiscation ;" and the person or per- 
sons cutting the timber liable to a fine of 1^500, and imprisonment. 

An Act approved February 23d, 1822, directs " the employment of 
the land naval forces" and such other measures to be taken, as may be 
deemed advisable respecting the timber in Florida," &c. 

An Act was passed on the 3d of March, 1831, expressly declaring all 
the other acts in force in Florida, and applies to timber of every de- 
scription : live oak, cedar, and other timber. " Vessels to be seized, 
captains to be subject to fine of ^1000 : all the other hands cutting sub- 
ject to prosecution," &c. 

John Rodman, Esq., Collector of the Customs, at St. Augustine, and 
a principal oificer of the government in Florida, has given the copies of 
his instructions from the several Secretaries of the Treasury, which are 
on file with the other papers. They are 

From the Hon. Wm. H. Crawford, dated 23d April, 1823, 
" Richard Rush, dated March 31, 1828, 

*' S. D. Ingham, dated Dec'ber 4, 1829. 

All these direct the application of the laws of 1807 and 1817 to 
" grants not yet confirmed by our Government." 

The letters of John Rodman, Esq., in the printed documents, pages 
21, 23, 32, show that he applied these instructions to lands situated as 



the claimant's were. " I am expressly directed by the Secretary of 
the Treasury, he says, " to seize all timber cut upon these lands, the 
government consider all lands in Florida, the claims of which have not 
been confirmed, as public lands." 

On the lOlh of April, 1828, Mr.Wm. D. Acken, was commissioned 
by the Secretary of the Navy, *'our agent for the preservation of tim- 
ber in East Florida," with instructions to call upon the district attorney 
for advice. 

On the lOlh of May, 1828, the district attorney at St. Augustine, 
directs Mr. Acken to consider *' mill grants as the public property of 
the United States,^' and calls his attention to the acts of Congress on 
the subject. These directions were communicated by Mr. Acken to the 
Secretary of the Navy, from St. Augustine, on the 12lh of May, 1828, 
as forming the rule of his own conduct in Florida. See page 67 and 60, 
printed documents. 

On the 1st of July, 1828, the Navy Department instructs Mr. Acken 
to *' use great vigilance," <fec.; and in all doubtful cases to refer to the 
district attorney, and follow his instructions .'^ See page 208. 

On the 12th of August, 1828, the General Land Office, acting with 
" the Treasury and Navy Departments," instructs Mr. Douglass, the 
district attorney, at St. Augustine, to stop the cutting of all " valuable 
timber,'^ on grants "not confirmed,'^ even when they had been 
regularly filed by the owners, and says, the Navy Department will issue 
corresponding instructions to their agent. Page 208 and 210. 

On the 14lh of August, 1828, the district attorney of East Florida, 
as he says, at page 178, by instructions received by him, from George 
Graham, Esq., Commissioner of the General Land Ofiice, was to con- 
sider all lands claimed under Spanish grants, then remaining uncon- 
firmed as public lands, and they were to be treated accordingly." 

On the 23d of September, 1828, it will be seen at page 80, printed 
documents, that Mr. Acken wrote the Secretary of the Navy, thus, 
" It would be well for the Secretary of the Treasury to give instructions 
to the different collectors in Florida, as well as the collector of St. 
Mar)''s, Georgia, whose district extends to Nassau river, to permit no 
vessel to clear with live oak or other timber, without a certificate from 
each individual from whose land it was cut, and the particular place 
from whence shipped, stating the tract, and whether it has been con- 
firmed by the Board of Land Commissioners or otherwise." These 
instructions, it would appear, were accordingly issued, as the Collector 
of the customs of St. Augustine — has furnished copies thereof. 
2 



10 

On the 18ih of December, 1828, Mr. Acken notifies the Navy De- 
partment: " I have, by advice of the district attorney, prevented any 
timber being cut on lands, the titles to which are not settled, especially 
the Mill Grants,''^ and refers particularly to that of Charles F. Sib- 
bald, &c. See page 210. 

On the 22d of May, 1829, the Commissioner of the General Land 
Office writes to the Secretary of the Treasury, enclosing a letter from 
the district attorney, suggesting a relaxation of the general instructions, 
♦' so as to sanction the taking orpine timber for mill logs." 

On the 10th of July, 1829, the Secretary of the Treasury writes the 
General Land Office: " No sufficient reason is perceived for a further 
modification of the general instructions." 

In "an advertisement" in the public papers, see page 20, the district 
attorney in accordance with his instructions says, " these instructions 
extend not only to live oak, and cedar timber, but to timber of every 
description, for the purpose of shipping, the use of saw mills, &;c. 

It will be seen that the remonstrances and applications of the Claim- 
ant to the Treasury and Navy Departments, Attorney General, and 
other officers, against these most unjust proceedings, were constant ; 
from June 1828 to November 1835, he endeavoured, without intermis- 
sion, to get these measures withdrawn ; and that, notwithstanding, 
agents were successively appointed to enforce these orders. 

Reference is particularly requested to all the evidence as to the acts 
done, also to 6 Peters. Arredondo vs. the United States. 

It is thus clearly established, that it was the indisputable intention 
of the government of the United States, and its officers, to prevent abso- 
lutely and forcibly, the use of all the lands in Florida, held under 
Spanish grants, until the same were confirmed by the United States 
Courts ; that they extended this to mill grants, live oak lands, pine 
lands, and to all cutting of timber : That to enforce this, they sent spe- 
cial instructions, and special agents, and authorized the forcible use of 
the military and naval forces. 

Next. What did the officers of the United States do under this au- 
thority ? This is a question put by the attorney general. It is readily 
answered. 

More than twenty witnesses have been examined and given testi- 
mony conclusively, proving that a trespass of the most aggravating cha- 
racter has been committed on the property and rights of the Claimant. 
These witnesses of irreproachable character, and among them several 
officers of the government, positively and unequivocally prove that a 



11 

trespass has been committed ; and as is shown liere, sanctioned by, and 
under the direct advice of this Government, for which this claimant 
asserts his claim for indemnity. It will be sufficient to exhibit the fol- 
lowing : — 

1. CHARLES SNOWDEN, Esq., of Philadelphia, the agent 
of the claimant at his mills, gives the following answer to the 3d interro- 
gatory, page 11, on the part of the United States. 

'* Mr. Sibbald was dispossessed of his lands, and prevented from 
using them from the year 1828 to 1836, when his title to the lands was 
confirmed by the Supreme Court of the U. States, He was, during 
this time, prevented from cutting timber for the use of his mills — both 
pine timber and live oak — to execute his contracts. He was dispos- 
sessed by Mr. William D. Acken — he was commissioned by the Navy 
department. He was the most active in the business. He was an 
officer and agent of the government of the U. Stales. This act of the 
government also dispossessed him of liis saw mills." And to the 
fourth interrogatory on the part of Claimant, he says, page 16, 

" Mr. Sibbald was, as before stated, dispossessed of his lands and 
mills, by the officer and agent of the United States — Mr. William 
D. Acken ; — he ivas a special agent of the government, sent from 
Washington, and acted with Mr. Douglass the District Attorney. He 
stopped Mr. Samuel Grice from cutting live oak timber on the lands 
claimed by Mr. Sibbald, and forbid me from having pine timber cut to 
supply the saw mills. The people I sent on Mr. Sibbald' s lands to 
cut mill logs, were driven from their ivork by Mr. Acken, and he 
threatened me with an injunction, arrest and imprisonment — and to 
bring a detachment of troops from St. Augustine, and to put me in the 
Fort — as 1 wrote Mr. Sibbald at the time." 

He also seized the mill logs cut for the use of the mills, and threw 
every possible obstruction in the way, until I was compelled to submit.' 

2. JOHN GIBSON, Merchant, of Philadelphia, then Book- 
keeper of claimant, gives evidence (see page 22,) in confirmation. 

3. SAMUEL GRICE, Esq., of Philadelphia, Navy Contractor, 
page 29, says, — Third interrogatory. " Mr. Sibbald was dispossessed 
of the live oak lands that I had been on myself; and I have no know- 
ledge that he is possessed of them yet. This was done by an agent of 
the government of the United States, Mr. Wm. D. Acken." And page 
32, fourth interrogatory, '' I was told by Mr. Rodman, Collector, and 
Mr. Douglass, the District Attorney, that we could not cut the timber 
on the lands, xmder pain of fine and imprisonment." 



12 

4. WM. CARLYLE, engineer of the mills, says, at page 44, 
" He was deprived, all the time I was there, of cutting saw logs and 
live oak, and continued to be so when I left there. I was there" (at 
the mills,) " about eighteen months, including one short absence." 

5. JOHN RODMAN, Esq., Collector of the Customs, says, at 
page 110, " Mr. Acken called upon me, and observed, that by his in- 
structions he had always considered himself bound to prevent the cut- 
ting of any kind of timber on public lands, or the removal of it in any 
way; and that land claimed by the possessors under Spanish grants, if 
those grants had not yet been confirmed by our Government, were com- 
prised by our Government in all public lands ; he also assured me that 
Mr. Douglass, the District Attorney of the United States here, had as- 
sured him that he (the District Attorney,) had received instructions of 
the same nature and the same effect, to prevent the cutting or removal of 
any timber, even pine, as well as live oak or red cedar, on any granted 
land, as well as any other public land, unless the grant had been con- 
firmed by our (iovernment. I well remember, in a conversation with 
Mr. Douglass on this subject, he declared he had received instructions 
to that effect ; that is, to prevent people from cutting any kind of tim- 
ber, not only on obvious public lands, but on any lands claimed from 
Spanish grants, if these grants had not yet been confirmed by our 
Government." 

And Mr. Rodman notifies the claimant on 11th December, 1828, as 
follows: — "The District Attorney has given Mr. Acken his written 
opinion, that all grants for mill seats, until confirmed by the Govern- 
ment, or decided by the judiciary as valid, are to be considered as pub- 
lic property of the United States." See letter, page 21. And on the 
24lh of February, 1830, the claimant was again thus notified by the 
said Collector of Customs ; " I am expressly directed by the Secretary 
of the Treasury to seize on all timber cut upon these lands — the Govern- 
ment consider all lands in Florida, the claims for which have not been 
confirmed, as public lands," — page 23 ; and on the claimant making an 
effort, in November, 1835, to get the use of his property, he is again 
notified by the Collector, from " St. Augustine, on the 20lh of No- 
vember, 1835, with regard to your enquiry respecting the cutting of 
live oak timber, you cannot cut a slick of it on any of the lands which 
you claim, until the grant be finally confirmed in court. My orders on 
the subject from the Treasury department are express, to stop and seize 
all timber cut," fcc. Page 32. 



18 

6. This testimony is fully confirmed by that of the District Attorney \ 
at page 178, MR. DOUGLASS says, " By instructions received by 
him from George Graham, Esq., Commissioner of the General Land 
Office, bearing date August 14th, 1828, a copy of which is herewith 
enclosed, it will appear that all lands claimed under Spanish grants then 
remaining unconfirmed, were considered public lands, and to be treated 
accordingly." 

7. See also testimony of GEORGE COLT, Book-keeper, page 
117, 9th and 10th interrogatories, 

8. See that of JOHN WARREN, page 121, 3d interrogatory, 
and page 123, 4ih interrogatory. 

9. LEWIS FLEMMING, planter, page 133, says, " William 
D. Acken, Esq., agent of the United States, told witness, that he had 
stopped JVIr. Snowden the agent of Mr. Sibbald, from culling pine tim- 
ber on Sibbald's Mill Grant," &c. 

10. FARQUHAR BETHUNE, Esq., planter, page 136, 3d 
interrogatory, and page 139, 4th interrogatory, says, "To the acts of 
the government of the United States, or their agents, is the destruction 
of Mr. Sibbald's mills to be attributed. The government of the United 
States instructed their agents to consider all mill grants as public pro- 
perty, and deprive their owners of the use and profits of them, until the 
Supreme Court of the United States decided in their favour." 

11. WILLIAM J. MILLS, assistant book-keeper at the mills, 
page 142, 3d interrogatory, says, " Mr. William. D. Acken, repeat- 
edly, in my presence, forbid the agents of Mr. Sibbald to cut lumber 
of any kind, from the lands owned by him ; as well as to forbid many 
settlers and owners of land in the vicinity, of cutting lumber to supply 
the mills ;" and the 4th interrogatory, he says, " The agents of Mr. 
Sibbald were annoyed for more than a year before the stoppage. Thou- 
sands of logs were left to rot in the woods, by such interference." 

12. DR. JAMES HALL, at page 193, 3d interrogatory, says, 
*' He was informed and believes that a quantity of pine timber which 
had been cut on the tract on Trout Creek, was seized by William D. 
Acken, Esq., an agent of the government of the United States." 

The said agent told this witness, that " he was instructed by the 
government to prevent the cutting of timber upon all the mill grants 
that had not been confirmed ; and to seize all timber which had been 
or might be cut on any such unconfirmed grant — the government con- 
sidered them public lands, and treated them accordingly." 

13. MR. GEORGE COLT, book-keeper at the mills, in 1828, 
'29, and '30, recently, in answer to interrogatories, says, " The United 



14 

States agent, Mr. William D. Acken, did come to the mills during my 
residence there, and interfere, interrupt, and stop his said Sibbald's 
business. The, United States agent did go into the woods and drive 
the operatives from cutting the mill logs necessary to supply the saw- 
mills. The United States agent did hold the agent and operatix^es of 
Mr. Sibbald, in strong apprehension of personal danger, by threats 
of whipping the negroes and of imprisoning the agent, Capt. Snoio- 
den, in the St. Jiugustine fort ; and that the United States troops 
should be brought upon the spot to see these threats enforced. There 
were serious and many altercations between the United States agent, 
and the agent of Mr. Sibbald, in resisting these encroachments upon the 
rights and property of Mr. Sibbald. The United States agent did, pre- 
viously, stop the cutting of live oak timber, which Mr, Sibbald was cut- 
ting to supply his navy contracts and ship building. There was more 
or less live oak timber upon the said Sibbald's tracts of land. 1 was 
present at the Panama steam saw mills, when Mr. Acken, the govern- 
ment agent, forbid the cutting of any timber, upon the grants of Mr. 
Sibbald, and when these said aggressions were made, I know that Mr. 
Sibbald has been in correspondence with the officers of the executive 
departments at Washington ; and has remonstrated with them and 
resisted their encroachments upon his rights since he was first molested 
in his operations in Florida." 

"I know that letters were received by Mr. Sibbald's agent from Mr. 
Rodman, (Collector of St. Augustine,) directing him not to cut any more 
pine logs on Sibbald's grant. There were agents appointed by the 
government successively to enforce the prohibition on Mr. Sibbald. I 
recollect the names of Mr. Acken, Mr. Mason and Major Taylor." 

14. JAMES RICE, a millwright, who assisted to build the mill 
erected in 1829, has recently given the following testimony: " That he 
is a millwright, and was employed in the capacity of millwright at the 
steam saw mill erected by Charles F. Sibbald, merchant of the city of 
Philadelphia, on said Sibbald's land in Florida, in the year one thousand 
eight hundred and twenty-nine. That the land on which said saw mills 
were erected, was said, at the time, to belong to Mr. Sibbald, a tract of 
sixteen thousand acres, well timbered with pine and some live oak suit- 
able for building vessels." 

"That he, the deponent, knows of the operatives of the said Sibbald 
being driven off, and prevented from cutting pine timber on his, the 
said Sibbald's lands, by an agent of the United States by the name of 
Acken ; and that said Acken quarrelled with the agents of Sibbald ; that 
the black labourers of Mr. Sibbald came in from the woods where they 



15 

had been cutting pine mill logs, saying that Acken, the agent of the 
United States had driven them from the ivoods by threat enins: to in- 
flict personal injury, by tvhipping them ; that the deponent does not 
know whether they (the blacks) were prevented from cutting the live 
oak or not ; that Charles Snowden was the agent of Mr. Sibbald at these 
mills ; that he knows that Mr. Chester Sully was also engaged in cut- 
ting mill logs on Mr. Sibbald's land ; that his encampment was on what 
is called Six Mile Creek, and that Mr. Acken told this deponent that 
he had driven the said Sully away, and prevented him from cutting tim- 
ber on the premises of the said Sibbald, and caused the hands em- 
ployed to leave, but where they went, this deponent does not know ; 
that this deponent does know the fact of these hands leaving, and 
recollects the time from Mr. Sully's taking a quantity of rope and some 
blocks, &c." 

15. THOMAS STEPHENS, of the city of Philadelphia, then em- 
ployed as blacksmith at the mills, has also recently given the following 
testimony: " I engaged with Mr. Charles F. Sibbald, in December, 1828, 
to work as blacksmith in erecting a steam saw mill and other smith work 
in that way, at Panama, in East Florida. Mr. Sibbald asked me if I 
understood ship work, as well as mill work, and mentioned his intention 
of building shipping, and that I would be called on to work at ship smith 
work as well as mill smith work. • After I had been there I found that 
there was timber pine as well as live oak, &c. To the best of my re- 
collection the saw mill could run forty saws. I think it did not require 
less than forty logs a day to keep the mill in operation." 

"1 know of an agent of the United States coming on Mr. Sibbald's 
property, and forbidding the labourers to cut any more timber. I know 
that he forbid them cutting any more timber, and if they did not leave 
directly he would tie the negroes up and ivhip them ; and they came 
to report these circumstances to the agent, Captain Charles Snowden. 
Mr. Chester Sully was the man who directed the negroes in their work 
in cutting, on Six Mile Creek, at the time, on Mr. Sibbald's lands. The 
spot where Mr. Sully was cutting 1 have marked with the letter B, and 
indicated by an ink line on the map hereunto annexed." 

" I understood that all the lands on that side of the creek belonged to 
Mr. Sibbald, and as shown by the draft annexed. When the report 
was brought down that the agent had stopped them from cutting, Mr. 
Sully went to bring the logs down, that were cut, lie was forbid to touch 
any of them. I know the logs were there, and I saw some ten years 
afterwards, in 1839, when I was there. When I saw them in 1839, 



16 

some of them were very much rotted, and some partly burnt, in conse- 
quence of the burning of the underwood. The men employed at the 
works talked about this matter a good deal, and thought it hard that Mr. 
Sibbald should suffer such loss, and we expected that it being done in 
this high way it would stop Mr. Sibbald's business. Every person 
seemed anxious on behalf of Mr. Sibbald, knowing that the land was 
Mr. Sibbald's, and thinking that he ought to use his own property as he 
thought proper. The labourers that came in were so terrified that 
they dare not lift another axe ! " 

The testimony of WM. J. MILLS and THOMAS MAITLAND, 
the originals of which are before the third Auditor, of which claimant 
has no copy, afford additional testimony that these measures were 
continued up to the moment the grants were confirmed by the Supreme 
Court, by agents successively appointed by the government. 

The question of the Attorney General is here answered ; "What did 
the officers do by orders of the government to the injury of the claimant?" 

Then let it be asked, Avas there ever a more aggravated case of tres- 
pass committed on individual rights, than that which is thus shown to 
have proceeded under the direct authority of the government, from the 
officers of the United States ? 

The decisions of the Supreme Court have decided the claimant to 
have been the lawful owner of the land, prior to the cession of Florida 
to the United States — he has been assailed by a powerful adversary — he 
has proved his rights — and established his wrongs. The officers acted — 
by orders of the government ; this is clearly proved and beyond the power 
of confutation. Let us then unveil the case of all obscurity which dis- 
tance might give it, for the trespass was committed in a remote part of 
the United States — far from the home and abode of the claimant. Let 
us place it here ; close by in view of us. Take it from the borders of 
the river St. Johns, where his largest business operations were, and 
place it on the banks of the Delaware, not forgetting that the same laws 
and the same constitution that protect the citizen, and hold sacred the 
rights of property, and that regard a solemn treaty as inviolable, also ex- 
tend there. 

The claimant was a merchant, a native Pennsylvanian, a resident of 
the city of Philadelphia, in the enjoyment of a very large and valuable 
landed estate, and in the confidence of many of our most respectable 
mercantile houses, both in this city and that of New York. He has 
purchased and paid for this property ; has devoted his earlier life to it, 
and bestows the earnings of his earlier days upon it. 



17 

He forms his plans of business — consults with and receives, not only 
the approval, but support of several of our most extensive and respect- 
able commercial houses. This fact is proved by the testimony of several 
witnesses in the case. 

He erects mills of the most extensive and expensive kind, actually 
disburses an immense sum of money, sending to his property steam en- 
gines, machinery and necessary equipments of every kind requisite for 
such a vast undertaking. Millwrights, carpenters, steam engineers, ship 
carpenters, blacksmiths, and many labourers are sent out to his premises. 

He buys vessels, charters others ; in fact, every plan is carried into 
effect, and he is on the full tide of prosperity and fortune. His lands, 
which would extend for twenty-five miles along the shores of the Dela- 
ware and a mile in depth thereon, would nearly reach from Philadelphia 
to Trenton, affording the most valuable descriptions of yellow pine, red 
cedar, and live oak, besides being fit for agricultural purposes ; he builds 
saw mills, one of which worked 48 saws, to saw his own pine. He 
makes contracts for live oak, a description of timber to be cut and hewed 
by axes exclusively, which does not pass through the mills, to the extent 
of "upwards of three hundred thousand dollars for the frame timber of 
ten ships of the line, frigates and sloops of war," for the Navy Depart- 
ment. This live oak would have yielded him from 16 to 25 cents per 
foot for the timber alone, as it stood in his forests, besides his profits. 
His mills daily were capable of converting twenty thousand feet of his 
pine into active capital ; and here is the very point on which he was 
principally assailed. Could he saw his pine when they drive his la- 
bourers out of his forests and would not let them cut it? Could he exe- 
cute his contracts for live oak timber when he was driven from so doing ? 
Besides this, he bought planing rights, and planing machinery — had a 
store vending every description of merchandize, and other extensive 
business — all prostrated. 

The Collector of the Customs of St. Augustine, in his testimony, 
page 152, says, "he was blending the most useful arts of life with active 
commerce." At one moment we see a village in appearance, owned 
by an individual, employing hundreds of persons ; suddenly, in a little 
while, all is desolate. The government sends agents upon his premises — 
they threaten — he resists — he expostulates — he writes to every depart- 
ment — they annoy him, and assail him in every possible way ; threaten 
his agent to prosecute him, and to arrest him ; to imprison him in a 
fortress ; to fine him, and to bring a licentious soldiery to enforce him 
to obedience. They follow his labourers to his forests ; actually threaten 
3 



18 

«• to tie them up and whip them," if they cut another tree — " they are 
so terrified that they dare not lift another axe ;" they actually " drive 
some of the labourers employed away" entirely from the premises. 
The claimant " is annoyed for more than a year;" he can neither get 
relief or satisfaction "from the government or its authorities," as his 
correspondence so clearly exhibits. He is overwhelmed in difficulty 
and ruin ; his property is wasted and sacrificed ; his mills, say the wit- 
nesses, " dilapidated, rust out and rot down ;" his credit is destroyed 
suddenly ; from affluence and prosperity we see him thrown on the 
world and impoverished, and it is conclusively shown by the corres- 
pondence and testimony, that this course was persisted in, until his titles 
were confirmed by the Supreme Court. There was no fault of his own 
'' or laches''^ in the law, and no exertion spared to remedy the evil, or 
to endeavour to save the loss on his part. He passes days and years 
of care, with a load of debt thus heaped upon him ; he has to submit to 
any and every circumstance of the case, to have enormous usury added 
to the weight of his burthens, already too heavy to support, with wounded 
sensibility, and injury to his character and reputation, for assuming to 
own what is claimed by another, and thus he has to struggle on until 
the case gets to the Supreme Court. There he is forced to pay heavy 
expenses and counsel fees for what ? To try his own titles to his 
own lands. The Supreme Court declares the lands were his own 
when Florida passed to the United States, instantly — ^^ present ly^' — 
and confirm his entire grant. To add to the aggravation, to this day 
some of the lands, decreed as his, cannot yet be surveyed from an error 
in the mandate of the Court. 

Place this trespass on the soil of Pennsylvania, at the home of the 
claimant, what would be the public voice ? What would the law not 
do ? But Congress has legislated with a view to justice, so let the law 
be executed. They have declared all the principles of law appli- 
cable to similar cases shall prevail in awarding the damages of this 
aggravating case of trespass. It is a well established principle of law 
that the wrong doer always is obligated to make ample reparation to 
the full extent of the wrong done — just compensation to the full extent 
of the loss or injury that directly follows or flows from the wrong. 
This is the universal law of right, and short of which justice will not 
be reached. 

The claimant asks indemnity or reparation of damage. What is in- 
demnity ? It is well defined in the case of Cabal! and others, before the 
Commissioners, under the treaty with England. 



(19 

•* Indemnity necessarily imports reimbursement of loss, and includes 
compensation for the use, as well as for the value of the properly de- 
ported from the time of capture until the indemnification is made." 

The claim of compensation for the loss of the use of the deported 
property in the form of indemnity, has always been insisted on by the 
government of the United States ; and the American government ex- 
pressly insisted on the allowance of interest, and not only urged, but 
obtained it, as will be seen by the instructions from the Department of 
State to the Minister of the United States, in England, of the 10th May, 
1825, found among the public documents of the Senate. 

Under this view of reparation or indemnity, consequential damages 
have been paid to individuals for the loss of cotton crops under the treaty 
with Spain, under an opinion given by the Attorney General of the 
United States. By the treaty with Spain the United States agreed to 
make indemnity for losses sustained by the Spanish inhabitants of Flor- 
da, caused by the invasion of I8I2; the planters, in consequence 
thereof, lost their crops of cotton then planted ; the United States forces 
were not withdrawn in time to plant the next year's crop, and both crops 
were paid for ; and such losses have been repeatedly paid by the Trea- 
sury, as in justice they should be. In this case there is a special law ; 
and all the principles of law applicable to similar cases, are directed to 
be applied, as the standard or measure of the damages. 

The Attorney General, after suggesting the inquiry which has been 
now answered, has laid down the law and given instructions to the third 
Auditor, embracing, it is believed, the testimony that has been submitted 
on all the items of account of the claimant. They are as follows : 

First. Loss of his steam saw mills, destroyed by dilapidation and 
decay. 

Second. Loss of the use and profits of the same to the present time. 

Third. Loss of the use and profits of Woodworth's patent planing 
machines. 

Fourth. Loss of his store business, stopped by the government. 

Fifth. Loss of the live oak contract with Samuel Grice, Esq., for 
the frame timber for a ship of the line, a frigate and sloop of war. 

Sixth. Loss and injury sustained by stopping claimant's contracts 
with the Navy Department for two ships of the line, two frigates, two 
sloops of war and a schooner, of live oak. 

Seventh. Loss of ship building commenced. 

Eighth. Loss of trade with Cuba with vessels under Spanish co- 
lours commenced. 



20 

Ninth. Loss and injury to his commercial credit, together with 
interest on these items, yearly, as they would be made. 

Testimony to support these respective items of account, as specified, 
has been already placed before the auditor, and has been herein com- 
mented on. It is only necessary now to notice, further, the following 
points in meeting the instructions of the attorney general.. First. The 
value of the live oak contract with Mr. Grice, and the value of the tim- 
ber left in TurnbuU's Swamp. The Claimant submits the following 
remarks on these. Mr. Grice in answer to interrogatories submitted 
by Mr. Whittlesey, and on file with the original papers, replies at the 
9th interrogatory, thus, — "I believe if I had been permitted to cut the 
timber which I could have got on his land, I would have got ^16,000 
worth, and the whole would have been profit, as he was not to be at the 
expense of a cent." Further the claimant states, 

First, That the timber is no longer valuable for that contract, which 
long since has been fulfilled from other sources. 

Secondly. 'I'hat the timber, if it had been cut down in 182S, would 
now have been reinstated or succeeded by a new growth, in this lapse 
of time — now fifteen years. 

Thirdly. That there is a question, whether the timber is now there, 
or has not been pillaged, or otherwise wasted or destroyed. 

Fourth. That the absence of the navy contracts would impair or 
lessen the value of the timber. 

This establishes the point, that in consideration of the trespass, the 
Claimant is entitled to the full value of the contract price in 1828, say 
Sl6,000, and the legal interest thereon. This would be awarded be- 
tween individuals by the law applicable to such cases, from 1829, 
when the contract would have been fulfilled, to the present day ; the 
Claimant respectfully urges tliese views on this additional point, as en- 
tilled to the special consideration of the third auditor, and arising on the 
instructions of the attorney general. 

Again. With regard to the " planing machines ;" by the testimony 
of William L. Newbold, Charles Snowden, Peter R. Walker, John L. 
Ncwbold, Andrew Naudain, William J. Mills, Farquhar Belhune, and 
Dyer Cooper, the facts are incontrovertibly established of the purchase 
of these machines "in 1832." So, with regard to the destruction of 
the Claimant's entire business, the witnesses have testified fully and 
amply, thus, " I believe that the destruction of Mr. Sibbald's business 
arose exclusively from the interference of the agents or ofiicers of the 
United States." See John Gibson, page 28, Charles Snowden, p. 18, 



2\ 

Samuel Grice, p. 34, Wm. L. Newbold, p. 54, George Colt, p. 120, 
John Warren, p. 122, Farquhar Bethune, p. 138, William J. Mills, 
p. 146, John Rodman, p. 158. 

The only remaining matter to be noticed as arising out of the instruc- 
tions of the attorney general to the third auditor, is his reference to the 
Report of the Solicitor and Comptrollers of the Treasury upon this 
claim, made in the year 1839, wherein they come to conclusions, that 
it was under their view of the evidence " an equitable but not a legal 
claim" against the United States. 

Those gentlemen have given no reasons for coming to such a con- 
clusion ; and it may be, that they ground their view upon the basis that 
the United States, in their sovereign right, cannot be sued, and are be- 
yond the reach of the law ; however this may be, they derived their 
authority from the Committee of Claims of the House of Representa- 
tives . This Committee^ their principals from whence their power was 
delegated, after referring to their Report, say, *' The whole case has 
again come up before this Committee, and from the examination they 
have been enabled to bestow upon it, they deem the following facta 
established. 

" That the Petitioner was the owner, and entitled to the full, 
free, and uninterrupted use and enjoyment of his landed estate 
in Florida, at the time of the cession of that territory to the U, 
S. That he so continued the owner, and in quiet and peaceable posses- 
sion thereof, until he was disturbed, as hereinafter noticed; that his lands 
were well supplied with yellow pine, red cedar, and live oak, in detached 
parcels. That he erected extensive steam saw mills, to saw his pine tim- 
ber ; made extensive contracts with one Samuel Grice, and subsequently 
with the Navy Department, for a supply of live oak ; thus to bring into 
profitable use, divers portions of these lands; and had in connexion with 
these operations, other business to a large extent. That the officers of 
the U. States having in charge the preservation of the timber on the 
public lands in that territory, and the preventing of trespasses thereon, 
acting under orders of the Treasury and Navy departments, 
deemed and treated the lands of the petitioner as public lands, 
directly interfered, and prevented him, or those acting for 
him, from cutting or using his own timber; either for sup- 
plying his mills, or fulfilling his live oak contracts. That 
being thus prevented from the lawful use and enjoyment of his pro- 
perty, his credit, based upon its value and ready resources therefrom, 
became impaired; his business affairs (which were very extensive) be- 



came embarrassed, and after praiseworthy efforts to relieve himself 
from his pecuniary difBcullies ; he was compelled to yield to the cir- 
cumstances surrounding him, and throw himself upon the mercy of his 
creditors. His creditors immediately sued out attachments against 
him, and his mills, erected at an immense expense, and his other pro- 
perty in Florida, were taken possession of by the United States Mar- 
shal, in whose hands they have perished by dilapidation and decay." i 

" The orders and instructions under which the Government agents 
acted, were made to extend to all unconfirmed Spanish grants ; and the 
construction put upon them by the agents, seems to have been 
concurred in, and confirmed by the Executive departments, as 
they were fully advised of the conduct of their agents on the 
premises, and repeatedly and earnestly called upon by the pe- 
titioner to modify their instructions, and to interfere and pre- 
vent the loss which would result to him, therefrom. They were 
issued, doubtless, for the laudable object of protecting the public lands 
from injury and spoliation, especially the live oak, so necessary for 
the navy. Still, however, if in thus protecting the interest of the U. 
States, an individual like the petitioner has been seriously injured, the 
obligation to make him reparation is not weakened thereby.' 

" The act of the authorized agent or agents being approved 
by the government, it must be considered their act — and the 
injury, if any, to the petitioner, must berespondedto by them.^^ 

" In this view of the case, the Committee have found no difficulty in 
coming to the conclusion, that the damages which the petitioner 
actually sustained, by reason of the interference of the govern- 
ment, by their agents, with the use, possession or enjoyment of his pro- 
perty in Florida, when ascertained upon principles of Law and Equity, 
according to a true construction of the testimony submitted, should be 
paid to him, and with this view they report a Bill, &;c." 

This is the Report of the Committee of Claims to the House of Re- 
presentatives — where the case originated — where for several years it 
was elaborately examined — where the evidence was obtained by their 
Resolutions to the Secretary of the Treasury — and where the report of 
the Solicitor and Comptrollers upon that evidence was fully known, 
and carefully examined. The Committee is known to be one of the 
most respectable, and composed of nine members. It unanimously 
reported these as the facts of the case to the House, and the House 
unanimously passed their bill. The SoUcitor and Comptrollers having 
derived their authority or agency from this source, their prmcipals being 



23 

this Committee, would be necessarily over-ruled in their action upon 
the case, if it were at variance with the Committee. 

But this is not necessary. The grounds on which those officers 
based their Report have been materially changed by the subsequent 
testimony. This is admitted in a letter from themselves, now among 
the documents which the Third Auditor has before him — and since 
then such important additional testimony has been submitted, as it is 
believed will be admitted to put that report completely at rest. 

The views taken by a Committee of Congress, elaborately made in 
transmitting a case with a bill, for its settlement to the departments, 
certainly should carry with it respect, weight, influence, and conside- 
ration. 

The claimant asks neither boon, or gift, or favour from the Govern- 
ment, or its authorities ; but he respectfully asks, and confidently ex- 
pects to be righted. He seeks reparation, and ample and full indemnity 
for his wrongs. Congress has given him the law — his testimony can 
neither be perverted or controverted — and this claim is a vested right, 
of which he cannot be deprived. It is supported by testimony which 
fully establishes it. It stands on a basis that cannot be shaken — the prin- 
ciples are not intricate ; and the facts are clear: so is the law — the in- 
structions and opinions of the Attorney General upon this, and other 
similar cases, place it beyond doubt. It is respectfully and confidently 
submitted now for settlement, on its merits, and upon the testimony. 
The claimant holds himself ready to furnish any further explanation 
that may be required of him. 

CHARLES F. SIBBALD. 
Philadelphia^ May 12th, 1843. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



IlillllllllllililillillllilllllJIII 

014 498 913 2 



